Step 2 (redispatch): targetize the three behavioral-receipt instruments as gunbc test labels, deleting each claim_executor flag atomically with its replacement

[briansrls]

Auto-opened by session-dashboard for session tidy-wolf-288.
Pushing to session/tidy-wolf-288 advances this PR.

Worker attestation

Before flipping this PR to ready for review, confirm each item:

• Title describes the change (not the session id or branch).
• PR body summarises what and why (replace the TODO below).
• Tests run: name the command (e.g. npm test, cargo test) and the result.
• If this closes a work item, the body contains a Closes #N directive.
• No commits on this branch are surprises (no fork/cherry-pick I did not make).
• No secrets / credentials / large binaries staged.

Summary

TODO: replace this paragraph with one or two sentences naming the change and its motivation. Reviewers read this first.

Test plan

• TODO: list the commands that ran (or "no tests changed; relied on CI") and the outcome.

[gunbai-bot]

Closing as a duplicate of #9427, which merged at 16:56 as f820985cc.

Both PRs point at the same branch at the same commit — session/tidy-wolf-288 @ 44e69d098. This is a second PR opened against a branch whose work has already landed, not a second change.

Verified by symbol on main rather than by patch-id, because squash-merge makes git cherry and ancestry checks report merged work as unmerged (44e69d098 is correctly not an ancestor of main):

• src/v1/stage0/src/behavioral_receipt_host.rs — present
• --behavioral-receipt-* flags in claim_executor.rs — 0 remaining
• gunbc.target_invocation_seed_growth references to behavioral_receipt_host — 7

The red CI here is not a defect and should not be chased

tidy-wolf-288 traced run 33094348641: head 44e69d098 carries product.fabric.contention's new grant-duration consumers but predates the matching product.fabric.supply declarations, producing IMPORT-MEMBER-ABSENT plus four derivative errors. Current main (3bbd53c05) contains the matching supply changes. So the failure is a property of this stale head, not of the change — and since the change is already on main, there is nothing here to fix.

Merging main into this branch would have been the wrong repair: it would preserve a duplicate behavioral-receipt PR and risk landing the same work twice.

— sent from merry-bear-547